Not as much fun as previous games.

[DaveDash]

Lol you're kidding yourself.

A major developer would make it 10 hours playability, Xbox/PS3 friendly, and dumbed down so a retarded monkey could play it.

I also forget to mention..in BETA format upon release, right before Christmas, requiring expansion packs to fix.

[phantom67]

I think the main problem here is senility, I mean, most average players of CMx1 must by now be over 200 years old at LEAST, surely? Maybe the old-timers are just finding it a little difficult to adapt, you can't teach and old dog new tricks and all that.

edit

I found the game hard to get into. But after playing through the short training campaign (Task Force Raff?) the game went from "meh" to epic.

Holy crap I know right? It was a tough little campaign, but not too tough, y'know? Just enough to make you get your hands dirty. Excellent tutorial campaign, easily the best tutorial I've seen in a war game yet, bar none. Props to the designer.

[Battlefront.com]

CM is about the best computer adaptation of ASL I've seen.

Er... I wish I had known CM was based on ASL. I've never played the game before so it probably would have been helpful while I was developing Combat Mission. Imagine the time I could have saved cribbing from a dated board wargame instead of doing all that research and design work from scratch. Silly me

As for "Beyond Squad Leader", that's what Close Combat was called when Atomic was with Avalon Hill. They didn't base the game on ASL either, just borrowed the name and was going to have scenarios lifted from the game. But the switch to Microsoft changed that. Combat Mission, before the first line of code was written, was going to do the same thing after Atomic bolted. But it never got that far because Avalon Hill was abandoned very, very, very early in development.

That being said, a major development house could do a LOT better. So, as I said . . .

No major development house would be stupid enough to try First of all, ASL would make a horrible computer game. Most boardgames do. Second of all, it would be pitched to a market even smaller than the one we pitch to. In case nobody has been checking the boat slips in the Caribbean, there's no boat docked there called "Battlefront's Dream".

The vision behind CM has a LOT of potential, but I think it has a long way to go before it gets there at Battlefront.

I wouldn't hold your breath for anything better than Combat Mission. Especially if you think it's going to be associated with ASL.

Steve

[phantom67]

The only way a major developer might ever make (or try to make) something similar is if a major war broke out right now that sparked interest in the hardcore war-gaming genre. Until it does, games like CM will remain one hell of a niche.

Speaking of which, does BFC intend to release the sales figures for CMBN? Has the game broken even? Have you met/exceeded your sales expectations?

[gunnergoz]

At the risk of being accused of being a fanboi: you tell 'em, Steve!

I've played a lot of wargames, board and computer, and this one is the capstone of WW2 tactical games IMNSHO. It just doesn't get any better than this. So there, I said it. And no, I'm not 200 years old, just 63 but if this game (and PC's) had existed when I was a kid, I probably would have never finished high school...

[Battlefront.com]

There is a big change between CMx1 and CMx2 series games. The engine is flat out different and more of the tactical detail was appreciated and exposed.

Since that was the #1 design goal behind the CMx2 engine, it's always nice to hear it's been appreciated

For example, in CMx1 you could very easily assault and attack a position by throwing troops at your problems to pin them and then moving in risky ways toward your objective. In the CMx2 series you get punished for this behavior and because you're not seeing the target lines and other game screen contextual information that players relied upon in CMx1 (myself included) it's more difficult to ascertain where you may have gone wrong.

It goes beyond the target line stuff. The primary reason this sort of thing doesn't work anymore is Relative Spotting. In CMx1 once a unit was spotted ALL of your units knew it was there and could engage it, if possible. In CMx2 you can rush forward and never even see what hit you. Or more commonly one or two of your units will see what's hitting them, or some of what's hitting them, but supporting units don't. Targeting lines have nothing to do with this, really, because they show the effects and have no impact on the causes.

In CMx2 there's just that much more information to deal with. LOS, movement speeds, accuracy, damage, terrain, available orders, etc. are all more complicated. The real time option presents a real world problem in CMx2...how do you effectively coordinate your movements and (more importantly) combat stance orders while your opponent (who is no slouch) does the same but with a brain that can compute far more data at a far faster rate than the human mind?

Easy for some, impossible for others. It always comes down to play style. Those who feel they must known all the details will not fare well with RealTime because it's impossible to keep all this stuff in mind. Instead, RT is played by people who take a more "intuitive" approach to the game. WeGo generally favors players that want to take a more "informed" approach. Neither is better than the other, but it's been long since established that "informed" types don't generally do well with RT mode.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The only way a major developer might ever make (or try to make) something similar is if a major war broke out right now that sparked interest in the hardcore war-gaming genre. Until it does, games like CM will remain one hell of a niche.

We've had two wars recently and they sparked a ton of interest in FPS games. I shudder to think of what sort of war would be needed to get hardcore wargaming back into vogue! I doubt any of us would be able to network our computers from fallout shelters and caves anyway.

Speaking of which, does BFC intend to release the sales figures for CMBN? Has the game broken even? Have you met/exceeded your sales expectations?

We never release sales data. But I can say we started an "office pool" bet back in 2009 that we are actively weighing the sales results against. It was based on 12 months' sales, so it is too soon to declare a winner yet. However, for sure Charles guessed too low so he's going to get 3rd Place almost certainly. If the sales curve is even remotely like the last few CM games then Martin get's runner up and yours truly get's to do a lap around the winner's circle. Unfortunately I won't get to do more than that because we kinda never got around to saying what the winner wins. Doh!

At the risk of being accused of being a fanboi: you tell 'em, Steve!

The old "CM was based on ASL" urban legend is never going to die, but I do my part in trying to set the record straight. Full disclosure, though, Charles was given every ASL game made by Avalon Hill. So he at least was familiar with the game from an academic point of view. However, when we talked about this over beers Charles mentioned it more about how he did not want to do it the ASL way. That quickly turned into "no way is this game to going to have anything more than ASL's name". Then even that was tossed aside when Avalon Hill was left behind.

I've played a lot of wargames, board and computer, and this one is the capstone of WW2 tactical games IMNSHO. It just doesn't get any better than this. So there, I said it. And no, I'm not 200 years old, just 63 but if this game (and PC's) had existed when I was a kid, I probably would have never finished high school...

Heh... Gary Grigsby's War in Russia threatened my academic studies. My mother now laughs about how she said I was wasting my time on those games. Little did she know that my Atari 800, purchased with paper route money, would lead where it did.

Steve

[BloodyBucket]

Lol you're kidding yourself.

A major developer would make it 10 hours playability, Xbox/PS3 friendly, and dumbed down so a retarded monkey could play it.

I'm a retarded monkey, and even I found I could make the transition from CMBO to CMBN interface.

Yes, there are some features and functions from CMBO I miss, but the new game is quite entertaining and addictive.

[Coaxial Puppet]

I missed out on CMSF since I own a mac. I enjoyed CMX1 greatly but I have found CMBN to be more immersive and a hell of a lot more fun.

I just started a pbem in the demo with my brother in addition to a few others I have going in the demo and full version. I believe he is now talking on purchasing it soon.

It took me about 5 minutes to get used to the interface. I also use the keyboard for camera controls and find them to work nicely. My brother who only has dabbled in the cmx1 games has picked up on the UI pretty quickly too.

It will be hard to play any of the CMx1 games again. But I think that will be a good thing.

I can't wait to get some snow in this game but I have plenty to occupy me right now with all these hedgerows.

This is the game of the year for me.

[hoolaman]

Well I must admit after playing a couple of games over the last few days.(and yes I know some of you will have knocked up thousands of hours on this game) and missing out entirely the CMSF game due to lack of interest I am finding this current game a lot less fun than the previous games.

Part of it down the awe full interface with totally unintuitive lay out and key system. I seem to spend a lot of my time having to backspace through various units orders as I have inadvertently stupidly changed their orders due to clicking somewhere else on a different unit who just happens to be in command of them, This usually means if I don't spot it that I tell the Panther in the corner scenario to reverse down the road towards the enemy or I order my half tacks to drive out into the open and get blown up.

Picking up the interface can be difficult because it is rather unique, but I suggest sticking with it because like anything muscle memory kicks in and away you go.

I'd suggest a couple of things to try and make it easier:

1: Don't use the relative hotkeys, they are anti muscle memory. Use direct hotkeys and or mouseing directly on the buttons.

2: Try playing around with some small battles in real time play even if you don't intend to play RT. WEGO only lets you get it wrong once per minute and it is harder to anticipate the results of you actions.

[RogCBrand]

I think the main problem here is senility, I mean, most average players of CMx1 must by now be over 200 years old at LEAST, surely? Maybe the old-timers are just finding it a little difficult to adapt, you can't teach and old dog new tricks and all that.

"Depends" are the way to go! No more worrying about geezer-bladder and having to rush off to the bathroom every 10 minutes and breaking the flow of the game!

[guachi]

While this seems to be about the 100th "I don't like the interface thread", I will say that I found the CM:BO camera controls easy to use.

I started a game of CM:BO before CM:BN came out to bide my time (I tried doing that with CM:SF demo, but the interface had me cursing, literally, at my screen). I hadn't played since August 2000 as I was still on patch 1.05. I found moving about the screen easy. First, it had direction arrows right on the screen that are obvious for any newbie to figure out. Then, I put my hands on the number pad to see if that worked and movement was a breeze. Being left handed, it was perfect. Move around screen with right hand, click on the units with my left hand. Easy!

As to combat feedback - I liked that CM:BO showed unit info in the form of X men in good condition and Y men injured/dead. It was an easy way to see how damaged the unit was. In CM:BN it's not nearly as easy. Either I have to look in the way lower left of my screen - a terrible place on a big monitor - and try to find the 'casualty' listings and count them up. Not easy considering they are in small text in the same color as the rest of the status (maybe if casualties were red?). But they also disappear. Or I can count up the number of weapons. But still, when you have lots of units, I'd rather see it as 8 healthy 4 wounded.

What's frustrating to me is that there is so much more detail but it's more difficult to access. There is so much awesome stuff that occurs each turn, I wish it were easier to take stock of it. All these little dramas that are exciting to watch, but too easy to miss.

CM:BN is a fun game, and it saddens me that people have a negative first impression of a game they clearly want to like.

[sand digger]

This game feels a lot more realistic than CMx1, it feels like you are actually involved in something that is real, particularly where infantry are involved. That does not necessarily translate into the OP's 'fun' though, perhaps realism negates fun to some degree, particularly when it involves more work than it should.

The one thing carried over from x1 is the virtual impossibility of ascertaining at a glance the lie of the land which makes tedious work of setup and planning. I can look out the front windows of my house at real hills and undulations and easily see such detail, if that can't be done in a game then include artificial aids to provide such information. Of all the things to carry over

[Lunsku]

Well I must admit after playing a couple of games over the last few days.(and yes I know some of you will have knocked up thousands of hours on this game) and missing out entirely the CMSF game due to lack of interest I am finding this current game a lot less fun than the previous games.

Hear, hear. I must admit I'm a bit on the same boat, after wasting a lot of time with CMBO back in 2000-2002 (looks like my old forums account disappeared with some board transition).

It's pretty much just UI issues to me mostly, and most have been mentioned. More clearly seeing who is firing at what, visualizing C&C links better, GRAND UNIT LIST, generally tools to help to visualize what is happening better. I just feel that I could much more intuitively step into CMBO back in the day.

Still, definitely not a ~50 € wasted, hopefully my steelbook hits mailbox back here in Finland this week or the next. Just looking at the mechanics I really like the CMx2 system. Relative spotting is great once I got used to it, non-abstract infantry is absolutely great, with the ability to split proper fire teams and all, and hasn't been problematic for me. It's a robust engine, and many of the UI and clarity issues are solvable. And hey, theres a new PBEM file from my buddy already, better stop writing this...

[REVS]

Hang in there Gautrek, give it time. I'm slowly getting used to the new game, and it's taking time, but I definitely get the sense that I'm becoming better at moving the camera (the really difficult thing to learn, for me) each time I open it up, not to mention understanding the new ways of giving orders, moving, etc etc.

Meanwhile, I'm still playing CMAK and CMBB via PBEM, while I slowly learn the new game. I don't expect to completely switch over to CMBN-only for a few more months, until I am truly comfortable with the new game, and my regular PBEM opponent is, too.

[daft]

I have to say that this is one of the best wargames I've ever played. I logged a ****ton of hours in the original CM:BO and have played every iteration of Combat Mission ever released and this is, in my book, the best one yet. I dont really have any major UI gripes and I find the action to be comparatively easy to follow and any confusion that arises feels just like what you would expect in a real combat situation.

I still remember seeing a preview of CM:BO and the excitement it generated in me, and this game really brings the game series full circle for me. I will spend many hours wuth this game, and it will get patched and extended, but for a first iteration, CM: BfN is pure gold to me. A brilliant gem and worthy of both my time and money.

[Steiner14]

CRACK ! BOOM ! WTF was that !

see easy, you don't need lines just eyes and ears.

You can hear if a tank engages another tank? Using a squeaking turret mod?

And how is that displayed in the interface?

[Magpie_Oz]

You can hear if a tank engages another tank? Using a squeaking turret mod?

And how is that displayed in the interface?

Point is you don't get lines for targets or command IRL so for my money it is an improvement .

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Heh... Gary Grigsby's War in Russia threatened my academic studies. My mother now laughs about how she said I was wasting my time on those games. Little did she know that my Atari 800, purchased with paper route money, would lead where it did.

i still occasionally (1-2 times per year) play that game on a Apple II emulator. people should play games of this era before they complain about an UI being unintutive. (though War in Russia has great UI for a game of its era and theme -- definitely in top 1% what comes to usability).

[McAuliffe]

Well, I am of same opinion as Gautrek, Lunsku, Guachi, Steiner and Co.... So, maybe he didn't have to add "in my modest opinion" at all.

My humble observation shows, that we lost since CM1 series a number of good implementations:

- target lines

- command lines

- one click status report (wounded, killed, deployed, calling arty...)

- adjustable waypoints

- targeting at precise points instead of 'grid sticking'

- ambush ( hide&cover arc)

- hunt (move to contact - stop - fire - move on)

- scoot and shoot

- targeting of higher level floors of buildings (while lower levels where out of LOS)

- scenario/map editor that is compatible with 3rd party apps that allow underlying bmp to transpire (not to mention importing DEMs)

- free set up or default setup option

- execution delay penalties reflecting chain of command lag.

- WeGo by TCP/IP

(some will add automatic generated quick battle maps, but I rather preferred anyway designed maps that were imported in a QB)

For as far as I played the CMBN demo, we won on following:

- incredible intense graphics, including 1 to 1 representation.

- more realistic terrain due to smaller grid squares.

- maybe not relevant in a Normandy setting, but will show a big improvement in later Bulge or Italy games : increased relief height.

- scripted scenarios increasing the single player challenge.

- maps and pictures in briefings.

- I am not the one to judge, but according to general comments, higher accuracy of the degree of lethality of HE etc...

- Acquiring ammo of fallen buddies, re-manning equipment /vehices.

- I am not too happy about the way they simulated fog of war, unless I am missing out on a help tool to find out who is seeing what, but let's consider its a good attempt.

- some will argue RT play, but I rather prefer to play WeGo anyway.

... and I regret , but that 's were my observations about CMBN stop, so feel free to add if I am missing out on something. Personally, I don't have problems with commanding the camera, but I am keyboard shy anyway. NB.: I liked camera positioning in CM:1 series as well.

So, what Gautrek is trying to say; that despite all the goodies we won, he is regretting that a lot of aspects of the CM:1 series are missing. I think he is entitled to make that observation and to question how comes, without being branded as an inflexible and stubborn board game grognard.

I don't understand how those implementations would affect the IRL simulation, so for my money it is rather due to the limitations of the engine. Why would they throw them otherwise out?

[MengJiao]

I think it would have to show target lines from each individual soldier, because that is the way the game is calculating combat. That would be a lot of lines. Any targeting you order just expresses a priority and only applies to soldiers that have LOF to that target.

The game design also presumes that you don't issue a lot of targeting orders -- that the TacAI is doing nearly all the targeting itself. So, presumably you should be able to keep track of what targeting you've ordered without needing target lines.

If I right about all of that, I doubt that BFC is going to bring a Show All Targets option back into the game.

Not seeing who is shooting at what can be disturbing in a big RT battle. I chalk it up to realistic tension and keep going. It often becomes clear eventually, though it does cause me to pull back units that look exposed and send out more scouts.

[Zatoichi]

From your list of missing items, you can indeed select upper floors of a building when the lower floors are out of LOS in my experience - there are occasional oddities with LOS, but this works for me vastly more often than not. Oh, and while shoot and scoot is no longer a single command, it is easily achievable with 2 movement commands with a pause in the middle.

As for the 'grid sticking' targeting, this is a visual issue not a modelling issue - in CM1 you had the impression of targeting anywhere, but this was an abstraction. The abstraction is still there in CM2 to some extent, but the fidelity is increased from 20m to 8m action spots - the targeting line sticks to the action spot, but if you area fire, it'll spread across the action spot and a little bit either side - this is important because of the ballistic modelling tracking each round and where it intersects.

Anyway, these things in no way invalidate your list, I was just trying to be helpful!

I'm loving CMBN - I guess I must be a half glass full guy because I'm not really missing much from CM1. The more I've played, the more I've found to enjoy, and the great thing is that you just know it'll keep on getting tweaks and new stuff added as the months pass.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

As for the 'grid sticking' targeting, this is a visual issue not a modelling issue - in CM1 you had the impression of targeting anywhere, but this was an abstraction. The abstraction is still there in CM2 to some extent, but the fidelity is increased from 20m to 8m action spots - the targeting line sticks to the action spot, but if you area fire, it'll spread across the action spot and a little bit either side - this is important because of the ballistic modelling tracking each round and where it intersects.

i still honestly do not understand this comparison that keeps surfacing year after year. in CMx1 area target (or unit positioning or LOS/LOF calculations or whatever) is not bound by or stickied to the tiles. in CMx1 the unit can be positioned in any position within a tile and a area target can be chosen for any position within a tile. the effect of the area fire or LOS/LOF calculations are not bound by the tiles, but by radius or cumulative type of specific types of terrain within the LOS line. it's not an impression -- it's how it works.

[Sgt Joch]

My humble observation shows, that we lost since CM1 series a number of good implementations:

(...)

- targeting at precise points instead of 'grid sticking'

On this point, I just want to mention that it worked the same in CMx1. Area fire was always targeted to the center of the 20x20m action spot. Its the graphical representation that made it looked as though you were targeting a precise point.

[Steiner14]

McAuliffe,

how do you do that? You have written that directly from my brain. Congrats to that post. It's a pleasure among the loud groupie chatter.

Point is you don't get lines for targets or command IRL so for my money it is an improvement .

In real life a tank commander usually knows, where he should move with his tank, too.